Menu

Five Moons RPG: Races, Classes, and Levels

Many of my blog posts about Five Moons RPG talked about things that are different from D&D/PF, but there’s a lot that’s similar! This article talks about some of that stuff (and for most of these topic’s I’ll be providing more info in the next few months).

(Update September 23, 2014: If you like this post and where these ideas are going, please check out the kickstarter for my Five Moons RPG, which uses these ideas. Thanks!)

Races

It’s a fantasy game, and Five Moons has humans, dwarves, elves, goblins, and orcs, of course. But you’ll be able to customize your race a lot. For example, if you want a character who has one elf parent and one half-elf parent, you’ll be able to alter an elf or half-elf’s standard racial abilities to create your version of a three-quarters-elf. Likewise, if you want a half-human, half-dwarf PC, you can do so. Or even a half-orc, half-elf PC.

I don’t expect it’ll be pages and pages of racial options (like Paizo’s Advanced Race Guide has), mostly because there’s a limited number of pages in the book and I need to leave room for other things, but you’ll have options.

Also, there will be ways to alter your racial abilities after character creation, or to enhance certain racial abilities as you level up.

Classes and Levels

I think classes are an easy-to-digest framework for creating a character and broadly defining its abilities. Plus, the idea of having a fixed range of character power (ranging from 1st-level apprentice characters to 25th-level powerhouses) is a really easy metric for a player to grasp. I’ve tried other games that are more of a point-based setup, and I’m just not as comfortable with them, or able to grok what a starting character is as compared to an advanced character (i.e., “You said I get 30 points to build my character… is that good?”). As compared to a level-based game, where it’s obvious that being 1st-level is a starting character.

I know that some people think character classes tend to pigeonhole character concepts, and they don’t think multiclassing handles it very well, either, but I’ve been working on a way to customize your character with power-level-appropriate abilities from other classes. More on that later, but for now I’ll just say that Jodi and I think the system I’m working on is a really fun way to make your character unique.

Skills

“Skills” in this context means “something your character can do naturally or automatically, and can improve their ability to do so,” such as climbing, jumping, sneaking, and so on.

I like being able to invest points (or ranks or dots or whatever) in my choice of skills.

I like that each of the classes can have a pre-set list of skills it should be good at; that makes it easy for a new player to understand, “this is a typical example of what this class should be able to do.” But I also like the idea that the class’s list of class skills shouldn’t be a one-size-fits all option. Much like how some archetypes in PF swap out your class’s class skills, I want a player to have more power to customize their character’s list of class skills.

I also want to add more options for doing remarkable nonmagical things with skills (like having a jumping skill not be a linear scale of ranks vs. distance, and therefore allow crazy shenanigans like a fighter jumping 30 feet into the air to attack a flying creature), and altering the relative costs of some skills (so Linguistics and Perception don’t cost the same number of skill points per rank).

Feats

“Feats” in this context means “something your character can only do if you have selected the feat” (which, by the way, is pretty much the way we defined it for 3E D&D… it’s why some things are skills, and others are feats).

Whether you call them feats, talents, traits, or something else, I like the idea that players get to customize their characters by selecting one or more abilities at character creation and when they level up. It’s fun to be able to select an ability that no other PC in the group has.

Yes, there are problems with the feat system (such as how feat chains trap characters–particularly martial characters that use feats as their main class feature–into specialized options), but there’s been a lot of discussion about ways to make it better (some of which have been implemented in other games such as 5E D&D).

Magic Spells

I prefer fantasy RPGs to SF RPGs. No surprise there. So Five Moons RPG is a fantasy game and has magic spells.

I’ve already written about the problems with spellcasters continually broadening their magical knowledge while martial characters are extremely limited by comparison. I’ve put a lot of thought into this issue and I think I’ve come up with a way to make it fair and still fun to play. Likewise, I have a way to greatly extend the “15 minute adventuring day” for all classes.

Overall…

If you’ve played a game like D&D (any iteration), PF, Tunnels & Trolls, or other examples of fantasy games with races, classes, and levels, you’ll easily be able to learn and play Five Moons RPG. My intent is that you’ll be able to convert characters, monsters, and magic items from one system to the other with only a little leg work. I’ve been playing games like these since about 1981, and writing professionally for them since 1996; it’s the sort of system I’m most familiar with, and they say you should write what you know, so it makes sense to me to start with a baseline I’m familiar with: classes, races, levels.

Reminder: If you like reading this blog, I strongly suggest you subscribe to this WordPress blog (by clicking the “Follow” button at the top or the bottom of the window), especially if you usually hear about these blogs from my Facebook fan page. Facebook is changing its algorithm for whether or not you get all updates from a page you “like,” which means that you might never be notified of new posts to my Facebook fan page. Subscribe here, follow me on Twitter, subscribe to my YouTube channel, whatever you’re interested in, but you can’t rely on Facebook actually pushing these notifications to you. This goes for all pages you “like” on Facebook, not just mine.

Post navigation

30 thoughts on “Five Moons RPG: Races, Classes, and Levels”

I’m one of those people that like to play hybrid classes that have a lot of skills, classes such as the Bard and ranger but I also like the idea of mundane classes such as the rogue and fighter. Some of the things that annoy me with D&D 3.x and Pathfinder are skills and feat chains.
Skills are very fun at lower levels. They can really bring your character to life, but most of them quickly become obsolete and feat chains forces you to specialize but the game often reward versatility. Also most feat chain doesn’t really pay off in the end.
Even though I don’t usually play full casters I still think it’s a bit silly that a high level caster still have to rely on a cross bow when the spells runs out.
Safe to say, I’m even more excited after reading this blog post 😀

Great, thanks!
And yeah, feat chains are another weird aspect of the caster vs. martial disparity. An ice wizard who knows zero fire spells for the first 10 levels of his career can suddenly learn a 5th-level fire spell and be perfectly competent at it, but a fighter has to invest in a chain of feats in order to get a specific ability that’s several feats deep (like Great Cleave, Snatch Arrows, and so on).

I’m loving Five Moons more and more 🙂
I think a lot of people would be cool with feat chains if they lead you up to something that let you do amazing stuff, but they don’t. Often they only grant you a static bonus to something or let you improve something you already can do.
I’m really happy skills will get some love, but I also hope magic users will get some love. Not that they aren’t powerful enough. It’s just that I don’t get why casters in Pathfinder and 3.x have to use cross bows or why they have to be so complicated: wizard must prepare just the right spell and Sorcerers have to pick the right bloodline and pick the exact right spell know.

I’m writing a spellcasting method that (1) means you won’t have to rely on a crossbow and (2) allows you to focus on your primary spells, but still be able to use your “oh it would have been really handy if I had prepared X instead” situational spells.

I really think pending how many feats PC’s will get, and how impactful they intend to be, will speak for how their implementation should go. In a set-up where we get very little feats, and Feat chains exist, it’ll only lessen the playspace of what that PC can do, and if those chains are weak, its encouraging trap options.

For Races, I do hope in line with customizable racial abilities, you won’t force a set Stat increase/decrease mold on a given race. That is, if you’re using ability scores at all (I’d laud removal of this), and races must have numbers to those, just let the Players choose them. As this would allow players to make PC’s that can be unique from their peers as PC’s are, allowing for more diverse combinations like Orc Wizards, & Halfling Strongmen.

Preferably, I would want a new Fantasy game to go beyond using the “stock fantasy races”, and go with more new and interesting ones. Even a game calling back to D&D in some way should not feel beholden to it (campaign settings sure didn’t), like this one game called “Legend of Grimrock”. I liked that its basic racial set-up was “Human, Minotaur, Lizardmen, Bugmen”, which in D&D sure, is lot more different and interesting set-up I feel. It’s fantasy after all, being imaginative with it, and its races is what its all about after all.

For Classes, I’m nowadays pretty much don’t care for Multiclassing, and just want to play a single quality class that does stuff I like/want from the concept. So long its not multiclassing, I’d look forward to seeing this “Power swap” option, as seems swapping level appropriate powers could be doable. As for the 25 level set-up, my thoughts on that have already shared on the “The Leveling “Sweet Spot” ” Article.

For Skills: “I want a player to have more power to customize their character’s list of class skills.”

Oh yes! very much so, In my games, I’ve since let players pick any skill they want, and I encourage an approach more like that. As you said, while the list is a good starting point for beginners, most people will choose skills relevant to their character anyway. This way, they have the option to choose some “must have” skills (Perception,Stealth, Sense-motive? Use Magic Device equivalents), or ones that may make the character more interesting. I think a limited customization wouldn’t be far enough in the case you design “Must-have” skills for classes that’ll need them, or causes a workaround for someone wanting a foreign character concept. Doesn’t seem harm in going “All-in” when it benefits those who want the customization, where those who don’t can stick with they got.

For Feats: “but there’s been a lot of discussion about ways to make it better”

Very true! I think pending how many feats PC’s will get, and how impactful you intend to be, will speak for how should implement that. If it’s like 3rd edition, and most people only ever have a small number of them, then ye want the feats to be very impactful & defining part of the character. As well that means ye probably want the feats to scale over time, and not do “feat chains” as they’ll make the characters more narrow & less interesting as a result. If we’re getting a lot of feats, can probably do Feat-chains, but then that also has the problem of having too many things to track after awhile (unless just direct upgrades). An example of first set-up, also has the issue that it can be quite bit of abilities to track after awhile, I’ll leave below:

“they say you should write what you know, so it makes sense to me to start with a baseline I’m familiar with: classes, races, levels.”

While I suppose that’s fair, I just want to mention that core concept can be fine, but don’t feel beholden by legacy, just because D&D had certain set-ups, doesn’t mean need to specfically stick to those names/concepts (like Race set-up, Level 25 legacy bit, and classes I’d mention, but you’ve said not gonna let “realism” get you down).

Not a lot of info here, but I like what I’m hearing. In particular, it always bothered me that races in PF play little role in your character beyond the first few levels. Even then, most don’t seem to do much beyond give you numeric bonuses. If you get additional abilities or enhanced ones as you level up, that would be rather cool and makes sense as non-humanoid creatures get more powerful as their HD increases. It would also add an extra hook for alternate options.

I’m glad there’s going to be a clear definition of what each character building option does. I’m also glad your skill selection and progression isn’t static. Despite the reasons many complained about the game, the main reason I stopped playing 4th Edition and a large reason why 5th Edition doesn’t appeal to me is because those games don’t give much agency in how your character develops after 1st level. Once choose your build at first level, you’re stuck with it unless you retrain (which the games often don’t have rules for). While many plan their builds in other games, they still have the option to change their mind or have their character develop as part of story, which I feel is very important. One of my players, despite having no interest in spellcasting classes, is now considering finding a way to cast spells since his character now has an NPC spellcaster for a girlfriend. Another player picked up anti-ghost/undead options because her character grew superstitious as a result of other-worldly spirits possessing her over the course of the campaign.

Oh? Excellent! I liked those retraining rules. They kind of codified how I ran retraining in my campaign. I let each of my players retrain once or twice. My players try to make their characters fit a specific concept, but aren’t very familiar with the game options to know the best way to achieve them.

I worked with one of my players to turn a retraining into a major personal revelation for his character. His concept involved a tough brawling monk lady who’s a member of a fire-affiliated race that attacks with fiery punches. Ifrit seemed like the obvious choice, but he found the race’s Wisdom penalty way too cumbersome for a MAD class. Seeing the Advanced Race Guide, I offered to let him retrain his character’s race as a fire-focused suli, but the player responded with a brilliant idea. Having spent her whole life believing she’s an ifrit, his monk one day started channeling different energy types, learning her true race as a suli and making the shocking revelation about her mother’s secret heritage. The monk started a spiritual journey to find harmony with her elements as well as with her feelings towards her mother.

I too love what I am seeing and hearing about your design intentions. I am going to echo a lot comments that the other posters have already made, but I’ll touch upon a few that are near and dear to my heart.

I agree with you about levels and class base systems. I also like point driven games, but I am almost instantly confounded (as a GM) on how one is supposed to scale encounters appropriately. I look to games like Shadowrun or the World of Darkness games and it does come across that you need a certain degree of system mastery to “eyeball” an encounter strength, and I look for a more useful metric than trial and error or “fudging the game” I’m trying to learn. I still like those games, but there’s a reason I don’t go to them first if I am going to GM. I just have never set aside the time to learn them to the point I was comfortable. At this point, I may never have time—and that’s a problem. Not just for me, but Companies that would be better off if I was buying more products and playing their game more.

Back on topic of what we can do with levels and classes…

One with spellcasters that bothers me, with traditional games like PF and D&D, is that most low level spells are obsoleted. That makes sense, but sometimes those low level spells have effects that are not reproduced by higher level spells. Sometimes it doesn’t matter, like with mage armor, but sometimes it does. You can juice them up with the Heighten Metamagic feat, but I don’t actually see that done a whole lot. I guess because you want those cool NEW higher level spells, and its hard to justify sacrificing them for a lower level spell so that it is still effective (plus paying a feat for the privilege). At higher levels you get lines of spells that don’t do much for you, with a few exceptions and utility spells.

I love skills and I love the idea of more uses for them. I would dearly love if Five Moons managed skills at higher levels better than PF. Its a scaling issue. I would elaborate on that problem more but I am confident that you understand what I mean and have thought about it more than I have

Point-based systems: Your experiences parallel mine.
Low-level spells: Yes! Personally, if you have spell X at 1st level, and spell Y at 4th level is just an improved version of that, that’s kinda lame. I have plans. 🙂
Skills: I have a note for myself to have the game explicitly say “this value *here* is about the limit of human ability on Earth… beyond that, we’re getting into superhuman territory.” And that lets us set benchmarks like “once you have 10 ranks in Cilmb, you can do [Earth-impossible thing, and at 15 ranks, you can do [something even more amazing].” You know how in the movie 300, Leonidas is climbing that wall to talk to the Ephors and their oracle, and there’s a point where he pull-“jumps” to a higher climbing point just by using the strength of his arms? That’s the minimum level of “crazy coolness” skills should let you do once you exceed the Earth-physics limit.

I’ve never found that APLs work that well. The further you get from the assumed tested group, the less they tended to work. See any discussion of trying to adjust the assumed wealth or assumed magical capabilities in Pathfinder for obvious examples of where it breaks down for Pathfinder.

I think a big part of the reason is the mechanics of D&D spell casters, where you have huge jumps in ability with each new spell level you can cast. Going to a system like Rolemaster (a.k.a. Chartmaster) spreads the spell levels out over 100 levels and had you slowly gain proficiency in a few different themed lists of spells. By slowing down the gain in spell power it helped quite a bit, but I found that particular system was more deadly than I enjoyed. Crits and fumbles may sound fun, but they tend to kill PCs.

Since one of the things already mentioned with Five Moons is that the levels are spread out more, hopefully it will avoid the huge jumps in power.

With most point buy systems the growth is also spread out. You are correct that you don’t judge power the same way as in level based systems, but that also means you can have groups that are mixed power without the lower power character feeling useless. I’ve seen 100 point GURPS characters make a real contribution to a group of 150-200 point characters because their focus was different than the other characters and worked well with the group. It depends partially on how much of the power gap is mundane equipment that can just be purchased and how much is unique powers that allow different options but not necessarily more powerful options.

The other thing that causes things like APL to break down is where there is a way for a character of a certain power level to be incapable of seriously threatening those of a higher power level. This problem isn’t unique to class and level systems, you can have the exact same thing happen in point buy systems. Examples of this would include what has evolved into the Pathfinder DR system where you need a certain power of weapon to even be able to hurt something would be an example of this — you’ve constructed a barrier where someone without the correct power just can’t hurt the opponent. There are also examples where the defenses just get so high that the less capable characters just can never effectively breach them. It doesn’t matter if you call it AC and saving throws like in AD&D / Pathfinder, PD and ED in Hero, or PD and weapon skill (specifically parry) in GURPS — someone who is limited to the ‘normal’ attack modes just isn’t an appropriate threat to the more powerful character.

Be interesting to see how much of a power gap Five Moons will allow. Can a group of 1st level characters still contribute in a meaningful way in a group of 5th level characters? How about a 1st level character and a mixed group of 7th-9th level? I’m curious about how much of a difference in levels Five Moons will allow for, and if there are barriers where those without the correct power become too ineffective.

Well, part of what you’re talking about is deliberate in 3E. The game expects you to have +1 weapons by level X, and therefore feels comfortable pitting you against monsters with DR shortly before that level, just to show you that DR is a big obstacle if you can’t overcome it, and then making the encounter normalize again once you do have the appropriate weapon. That’s why the CR 3 grick is a big deal in D&D… it’s a low-level (CR 3) monster with DR 10/magic, which means the PCs have to eat a lot of DR at the level they first encounter it, or use spells or boosts like Magic Weapon to temporary get through it (sadly, PF doesn’t include the grick in the original Bestiary, and this lesson is not taught to PF characters).
And part of the APL problem is the martial/caster disparity. Casters start to be able to do anything, and the base assumption for a typical party is two casters and two martials; if your group doesn’t follow that, the power level of your party is very different than the standard.
The smaller level increments in Five Moons RPG will take care of some of the “I can’t hurt this more powerful character” issue, too. In D&D/PF, a 6th-level character can have 100 hit points (I did it back in 3.0 without really trying, just good rolls and a high-Con dwarf fighter). In PF, 16 CR 1/3 warriors (say, the town guard) is a CR 7 encounter… by a stretch of the math, that’s a “challenging” APL +1 encounter, but everyone knows that many “mooks” against PCs aren’t really a threat. In Five Moons RPG, that 6th-level D&D character would be 12th level, and at that point it would be obvious that the 1st-level warriors are out of their league… but NPC opponents that are 5 levels away (2.5 levels in D&D terms) should still be some kind of threat. Likewise, having a 1st-level Five Moons PC in a party of 6th-level PCs should be possible… the character will be fragile compared to the others, and everyone will need to be protective of that character, but not the autokill albatross that they are in D&D/PF. Of course, ideally, adventuring PCs are much closer in level than that (and, with the idea that a 1st-level character is merely an “apprentice,” that’ll encourage the idea that you probably should bring in a “competent” 3rd-level character into a group of established, higher-level characters).

Skills: it seems like skills are prime territory to exploit the way you’ve described wanting to bridge the ex/su magic/martial gap. From the blog though, it sounds like skills will be purely mundane, which means you must have some other way of bridging the gap in mind? Class specific abilities?

@Garrick: I definitely agree organic character development is essential. If a character doesn’t change, it’s just a build.

@Jim: “most low level spells are obsoleted.” This bothers me too. The other side of that is, where does the awesomeness of high level spells suddenly come from? How did I practice stopping time? It would be cool to see high level spells scaled down as well as low level spells scaled up. But that’s just me being idealistic.

Multiclassing: I love customization. The more free the better. I don’t really like making lump tradeoffs (PF archetypes) which often mean I lose something I still wanted, and I really don’t like taking a full level of wizard if all I want is a familiar. I understand the balance problems that can arise, but how big a deal are those problems if they don’t impact DPR? It seems to me that lateral power isn’t that big a deal. It would be cool to see a game where you could choose class abilities (within reason) for the cost of a feat. But again, just being idealistic.

General: classes, levels, skills, feats, etc. are all things that are familiar and highly relatable. While no classes, no levels is intellectually interesting, it makes gameplay difficult (CRs), relating to your character difficult (what am I?), and makes the game less approachable (system mastery requirement). If someone had a way to develop a game without classes and levels that didn’t make everything more complicted, I’d be all for it. But until that day comes, it makes sense to stick with these things.

{which means you must have some other way of bridging the gap in mind?}

Well, once you abandon the idea that an ability has to be classified as magical or not, it frees you up to do a lot more with the tools you’re given. If your Climb skill is high enough, you can just run up walls instead of climbing them. If your Swim skill is high enough, you can swim up a waterfall, or maybe even a wall of fire. If your Acrobatics is high enough, maybe you can dodge bullets like Neo in The Matrix. If your Perception is high enough, you can spot details like Sherlock Holmes (in the Robert Downey Jr. movies). If your Survival is high enough, you can extrapolate tracking details like Aragorn realizing Merry and Pippin escaped the orcs in The Two Towers… or, like Prince Humperdink from The Princess Bride, you can track a falcon on a cloudy day.

{How did I practice stopping time?}

I’d assume you’d been practicing throughout your career… but you didn’t actually succeed until you first cast Haste, Slow, Time Stop, and so on. 🙂 There’s a first time for everything, from levitating a feather, to creating a candle-flame, to slowing a frog’s heartbeat without killing it.

{It would be cool to see a game where you could choose class abilities (within reason) for the cost of a feat. But again, just being idealistic.}

I agree. Not particularly with your comment about Combat Expertise, which has a place in the game–but there are many feats that should be “anyone can do this” options, which you can improve with a feat. Frex, fighting defensively is an option for anyone (–4 on attacks, +2 dodge), and Combat Expertise is the trained version of that (–1 on attacks, +1 dodge, scaling up with higher BAB). You could do the same with Power Attack, Cleave, Lunge, and so on… have a base version, and a feat version that’s better and/or scaling.

Honestly, I don’t like traits. They were bolted onto Pathfinder core after being introduced to the Golarion setting for campaign-specific ties, and now are just used as a power-up for PCs (much in the same way how prestige classes were originally intended as a GM tool, but were co-opted by players for character power-ups).
Given that Five Moons won’t have multiclassing (at least, not in the sense that D&D or PF does), there’s no need for a favored class mechanic.

What I like about traits is that it gives you options that PF so far/sometimes lack. Cosmopolitan is one of the exceptions to this rule and a wonderful feat indeed.
If now one wants to be forced to play the rogue I can pick a trait as try to deal with traps the best I can. What if the only option was a feat?
Would I mind if the only solution was a feat that grants me perception and Disable device as a class skill and let me disable magical traps? Not at all.

BTW, Will you make the “weak” skills more appealing?
I would really like if skills such as heal would be far more useful if you actually invest in it. I would even buy a feat to make it better I could.

{If now one wants to be forced to play the rogue I can pick a trait as try to deal with traps the best I can. What if the only option was a feat?}

Five Moons’ answer to multiclassing lets you make that sort of choice, yes. 🙂

{BTW, Will you make the “weak” skills more appealing?}

Yes, through several methods. 🙂

Did you know that the mythical Greek character Asclepius was such a talented doctor that he could raise the dead, without magic? Zeus eventually made him the god of medicine (after killing him because Hades feared that his realm would be emptied because of Asclepius’ knowledge).

Partially yes, there should be a chance of hitting something well above your power level. I don’t like the AC/BAB curves of Pathfinder. How much of a chance partially depends on how cinematic the game is and partially if there an Aid Another sort of mechanic to do aggregated attacks — one roll for four mooks as an example.

Even with that, I believe there also needs to be control on anything like DR that prevents a large portion of the damage.

@SKR Glad to know that there will be a greater ability to have PCs at different levels. The first level character isn’t likely to feel competent regardless of the group they are with. A competent character shouldn’t feel like as much of a liability to the group as Pathfinder makes them. Many times even a two level difference in Pathfinder makes it tough for the lower level character to contribute.

Bret
APL + 3 is an epic encounter by the rules. Even a CR=APL monster assumes that it takes the entire party to take it on. If the party fights a single CR=APL+3 creature, it should be difficult to hit because the monster has a significant action economy disadvantage. Supposing one disregards that, this is still typically not good encounter design. Even the GameMastery Guide and the core rules discourage GMs from designing single monster encounters for many, many good reasons.

BTW, I’ve never been a big fan of how multiclassing works in D&D, nor do I like the concepts of Pathfinder’s Archetypes. True I have played an archetypes and had fun with it, but what bugs me with the system is that it locks you into a class and excludes you from the core version, and some of the other archetypes. Also, a lot of class features that could/should have turned up as feats are instead used as class features. This is especially damaging to classes that relies on bonus feats, but it is just as sad when you love the core class but wants some more options for it and instead of more options you are given other options.

Archetypes add a lot of versatility, but they are a bolted-on addition to the core game, and the core game had to retain backward-compatibility with D&D 3.5. In other words, if the core game were designed with archetypes in mind, you’d have a much smoother experience. I totally see your point of “I love this class, but I have to give up aspects of this class to get something else.” A radical reboot of the feat system, and allowing you to select “archetype” or “multiclassing” abilities as if they were feats, would allow you to keep your core class intact and still pick your favorite goodies from the buffet menu (which is basically where I’m going with Five Moons).

{I totally see your point of “I love this class, but I have to give up aspects of this class to get something else.” A radical reboot of the feat system, and allowing you to select “archetype” or “multiclassing” abilities as if they were feats, would allow you to keep your core class intact and still pick your favorite goodies from the buffet menu (which is basically where I’m going with Five Moons).}

This sounds great! Now I’m even more excited :D.
I’m not exaggerating, but Five Moons sounds like the RPG I’ve been dreaming of ever since I stared to play 3rd edition.